To All Interested: I feel I need to respond, as Annie, to concerns regarding our recent decision to purchase the property along the river for a new Park Board and Recreation Board headquarters.
The first issue related to my decision to support the purchase is as follows. Currently, the Park Board is spending $316,000 per year in rent in the Current Grain Exchange and approx. 100,000 per year in parking fees in the Haaf Ramp for a total of $416,000 per year. The tax payers receive no return for this investment, i.e. no equity. The proposed costs for acquiring the new facility and renovation costs result in no net increase in costs per year, i.e. an annual cost of approx. $416,000 per year. However, we will be gaining equity in this scenario. In fact, the facility is revenue neutral until 2019. After this time, we will generate $4.8 million dollars in savings during the remainder of the term of the payments (until 2030) assuming continued increased costs of rental and parking (3.5% per annum). This does not even consider the parking costs to citizens who need to go downtown for permits and board meetings. Most of the comments neglect to mention that the taxpayer will be gaining equity in a facility! This decision is comparable to paying rent or paying a mortgage. If you paid the same per month, what would be the best financial decision - especially with the current low interest rates? Clearly, paying the mortgage is the best long-term investment. At any point in the future, we could sell the facility for a potential profit. In my mind, the decision to purchase the facility is not financially reckless! The decision to purchase the property is a financially sound decision for the taxpayer and will likely save money and generate a profit in the future! I would have voted against the proposal if there was any additional cost to the public. I agree that there should have been a public input process. Unfortunately, we did not have the time and had to make a quick decision or potentially lose the property. There was no intention to exclude the public from the process. Although the acquisition was openly discussed at several public board meetings, a full public hearing was the best route to getting public input. Again, the timing was an issue! A second, but critical factor, in my supporting the decision as an At-Large Commissioner is to continue development of the Upper River Area. Past Park Boards have been criticized for their decisions only to have current residents appreciative of what those past Boards have done. What would Minneapolis be like without the chain of lakes? What would it be like without the river parkways? Is it in Minneapolis's long term interest to let this property become something other than a park related site? A third and final point is accessibility. This facility will simply be easier to access than the current facility. We receive frequent complaints about getting to the board meetings, parking costs, and accessibility of permits. This facility will have free parking, be very bike accessible, and hopefully increase citizen participation in the board meetings. This is welcome and sorely needed! I am comfortable with my vote to purchase the property. It is a sound financial decision for the Minneapolis taxpayer. I also believe it is in the best long-term interest of Minneapolis to support continued environmentally friendly and park-related development up the river. The presence of park areas will only increase the value of adjacent properties and eventually the tax base of the city. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and or concerns - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sincerely, John Erwin Commissioner At-Large Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
